DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 22 October 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that merging records is not practically performable in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. A claimed data record, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, does not require a computer. For instance, a Rolodex® card is a data record. Merging Rolodex® cards is practically performable in the mind using pen and paper. Therefore, merging data records recites a mental process.
Applicant argues that matching and determining integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. A recited abstract idea alone cannot integrate itself into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Applicant argues that the invention is significantly more than an abstract idea because recited abstract idea is novel. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP § 2106.05.
Claim Interpretation
The claim term “machine learning model” means a generic machine learning technique under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 1 and 5:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “identifying at least two different data records of a plurality of different data records, wherein each data record is associated with a respective entity, and wherein each data record includes a plurality of respective record fields and corresponding record field values, and wherein at least a first record field value of a first data record is different from a corresponding first record field value of a second data record,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “identifying” encompasses a person observing two records. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “determining, based on a plurality of different match rules, whether the respective entity associated with the first data record and the respective entity associated with the second data record comprise a same entity,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers following rules. This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
The limitation, “determining, based on one or more machine learning models, whether the respective entity associated with the first data record and the respective entity associated with the second data record comprise the same entity,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The recitation of machine learning is mere invocation of generic computer-implemented steps for performing the determination. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment whether the respective entity associated with the first data record and the respective entity associated with the second data records comprise the same entity. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “merging, based on the user input, the first data record and the second data record,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “merging” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what the merged record should contain. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely merging two records together because they are both associated with the same entity even though each record has a different value for a record field. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The abstract idea of merging two records together because they are both associated with the same entity even though each record has a different value for a record field is not incorporated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the match rules-based determination and the machine learning model-based determination are determined in parallel,” generally links the abstract ideas of following rules and determining a match, as described above, to the technological environment of parallelized processing. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional element, “presenting, in response to the match rules-based determination indicating the respective entities are the same entity, a first graphical user interface element of a graphical user interface,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “presenting a second graphical user interface element of the graphical user interface indicating whether the machine learning-based determination indicates that the respective entities are the same entity or not the same entity,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “receiving, through the graphical user interface, a user input,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to merge two records together because they are both associated with the same entity even though each record has a different value for a record field using a computer as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f)
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “presenting, in response to the match rules-based determination indicating the respective entities are the same entity, a first graphical user interface element of a graphical user interface,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of presenting information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “presenting a second graphical user interface element of the graphical user interface indicating whether the machine learning-based determination indicates that the respective entities are the same entity or not the same entity,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of presenting information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “receiving, through the graphical user interface, a user input,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is collecting a response to presented information that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to collect collecting user responses. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of merging two records together because they are both associated with the same entity even though each record has a different value for a record field because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 2 and 4:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “determining a respective performance for each match rule of the plurality of different match rules,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how well the match rules worked. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “generating, based on one or more other machine learning models and the respective performances of the match rules, a matching recommendation action,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how the rules can be improved. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “executing the matching recommendation action,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “executing” encompasses a person forming a judgment that a rule should be replaced with a new rule. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely improving match rule performance. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 3 and 8:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “determining a respective performance for each of the one or more machine learning models,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how well the machine learning models worked. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “generating, based on one or more other machine learning models and the respective performances of the one or more machine learning models, a matching recommendation action,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how the rules can be improved. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “executing the matching recommendation action,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “executing” encompasses a person forming a judgment that a rule should be replaced with a new rule. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely improving match rule performance. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seth et al., US 2023/0177172 A1.
As per claims 4 and 6, Seth teaches:
identifying one or more match rules of a plurality of different match rules, wherein each of the match rules are configured to identify whether at least two different data records of a plurality of different data records are each associated with a same entity, wherein the plurality of different data records are deployed in a production environment, Seth ¶ 0038, where the merge circuit determines whether disparate identifiers refer to the same entity;
executing the one or more match rules on the plurality of different data records, Seth ¶ 0060 (“system 100 injects test data to analyze a performance of match rules”);
determining a respective performance for each of the one or more match rules, Seth ¶ 0060 (“measure a quality”);
generating, based on one or more machine learning models and the respective performances of the one or more match rules, a match rule recommendation action, Seth ¶ 0060 (“For example, system 100 may inject ground truth data (e.g., having known associations), may measure a quality of resulting associations generated by second data processing system 300, and may update the match rules to generate improved associations.”);
executing the match rule recommendation action, Seth ¶ 0060 (“system 100 learns and improves the match rules and/or the quality of determined associations over time.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
As per claims 1 and 5, the prior art does not suggest using generic machine learning technology to determine to merge two records together because they are both associated with the same entity even though each record has a different value for a record field by applying a merge rule to the records then applying machine learning to the records and displaying both determinations together for a user to accept. Insofar as Smith, US 2021/0240699 A1, teaches “match rules,” the match rules of are themselves the machine learning, and therefore cannot be the two separate things “determined in parallel” as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159